Teen Cosplayer Assaulted During San Diego Comic-Con

• Campylobacter jejuni wrote on 2014-08-02 22:49
  Because I know my post is just going to be forgotten otherwise:
  
  

  Quote from Campylobacter jejuni;1236776:

  It's not the whole species, just a minority ruining it for everyone else. Please don't imply that males are usually rapists. Far from it.
  
  On that note walking around in an erotically suggestive outfit in public is in itself hardly risky, no matter if it's night or not, because you're in public and there are people everywhere. You may get grabbed or something but I don't consider that a danger, lol. The risk lies in leaving public places alone while wearing suggestive clothing. So given the context the way she dressed would've been perfectly fine and non-risky if she had conducted herself accordingly. And of course in the end it didn't do jack shit about what actually happened to her.

• Second wrote on 2014-08-02 23:04
  The last time someone told women not to dress inappropriately, slut walk happened. Stop fighting the losing battle.
• Hanna wrote on 2014-08-02 23:13
  Despite what feminists say your chances of being raped while out in public are pretty low
  You are most likely to be raped by someone you know (co-worker, neighbor, family member, ect), I think what you're wearing has little to nothing to do your chance of being raped. However your location, time of day, and who you are with does.
  
  If you're alone in an alley at 2 o'clock in the morning you're fucking retarded
• Yoorah wrote on 2014-08-03 00:36

  Quote from TLCBonaparte;1236816:

  You guys are flying a plane towards a mountain side and barely avoid it. Just saying, fly it somewhere where your post can't be taken wrongly.

  
  Just thought I'd point out that this argument can be used against your own position. :P
  
  

  Quote from Second;1236827:

  The last time someone told women not to dress inappropriately, slut walk happened. Stop fighting the losing battle.

  
  I'm all for hot naked girls to hit the streets again. I don't see the problem here.
• Osayidan wrote on 2014-08-03 00:52

  Quote from Yoorah;1236841:

  I'm all for hot naked girls to hit the streets again. I don't see the problem here.

  
  
  Maybe we should tell women what to wear on a more regular basis.
• TLCBonaparte wrote on 2014-08-03 00:53

  Quote from Yoorah;1236841:

  Just thought I'd point out that this argument can be used against your own position. :P
  
  
  I'm all for hot naked girls to hit the streets again. I don't see the problem here.

  
  
  What am I slamming into? My argument has no moral shaky ground. I don't want talk of victim blaming on a rape topic. That's not wrong in any respect.
  
  On the other hands, you guys are in fact blaming the victim, but you think you don't. Why do I think that? Here:
  
  1. Do you think how the a woman dresses is correlated to her chances of attack and or rape? RapeCh = beta0 + beta1dress +ui
  
  a). They are correlated (beta1 > 0) - Then you think how she dresses is part of the reason why she was attacked, which means you think she is to blame for it, AKA victim blaming.
  
  b) They are independent variables (omit dress regressor from regression)- Then you don't think how she dresses affect her chance of being attacked, which makes bring it up to a rape topic utterly pointless.
• Kaeporo wrote on 2014-08-03 01:13

  Quote from TLCBonaparte;1236816:

  I just want to leave how she dresses out of a debate regarding rape. I mean if you say she wears too little during a conversation about women being raped it just sounds like you are saying her cloth is the reason and that comes off as victim blaming.
  
  If you want to talk about girl wearing skimpy cloth in general is displeasing you, do it on a topic that doesn't involve women being raped. That's all I am saying. You guys are flying a plane towards a mountain side and barely avoid it. Just saying, fly it somewhere where your post can't be taken wrongly.

  
  
  Fuck it. I'm not ruling anything out.
  
  Maybe once we can all accept responsibility for our respective positions and stop passing the moral high ground back and forth like it's a game of kind of the hill, stupid shit like this might be prevented.
• Rukuna wrote on 2014-08-03 01:16

  Quote from TLCBonaparte;1236850:

  What am I slamming into? My argument has no moral shaky ground. I don't want talk of victim blaming on a rape topic. That's not wrong in any respect.
  
  On the other hands, you guys are in fact blaming the victim, but you think you don't. Why do I think that? Here:
  
  1. Do you think how the a woman dresses is correlated to her chances of attack and or rape? RapeCh = beta0 + beta1dress +ui
  
  a). They are correlated (beta1 > 0) - Then you think how she dresses is part of the reason why she was attacked, which means you think she is to blame for it, AKA victim blaming.
  
  b) They are independent variables (omit dress regressor from regression)- Then you don't think how she dresses affect her chance of being attacked, which makes bring it up to a rape topic utterly pointless.

  
  
  No clue what you're babbling about
  
  
  It's the girls fault. She dresses scantily, lied to a man about her age, probably ruining his life and putting him on the sex offenders list, and she wanders around alleyways at 2am and gets herself knocked out. Men aren't perfect, but neither are women
• Yoorah wrote on 2014-08-03 01:22

  Quote from TLCBonaparte;1236850:

  What am I slamming into? My argument has no moral shaky ground. I don't want talk of victim blaming on a rape topic. That's not wrong in any respect.

  
  We should be free to make logical observation regarding a topic without being accused (with questionable logic, at that) that we are blaming the victim for the crime, much in the same way how womenz (or hell, anyone) should be able to do whatever they like without being put at risk of assault.
  
  Unfortunately, the difference here is that I'm risking receiving poor attempts at arguments while the women are risking violence. :( I'm fine with the risk, but it's another story for the other party.
• TLCBonaparte wrote on 2014-08-03 01:33

  Quote from Rukuna;1236860:

  No clue what you're babbling about
  
  
  It's the girls fault. She dresses scantily, lied to a man about her age, probably ruining his life and putting him on the sex offenders list, and she wanders around alleyways at 2am and gets herself knocked out. Men aren't perfect, but neither are women

  
  
  You have no idea because I wasn't talking about the girl. I was talking about the attitude people have prior to knowing it wasn't rape.
• Rukuna wrote on 2014-08-03 01:34

  Quote from TLCBonaparte;1236863:

  You have no idea because I wasn't talking about the girl. I was talking about the attitude people have prior to knowing it wasn't rape.

  
  I said I had no idea what you were talking about because of all the coding stuff, my second paragraph wasn't directed at you
• Hanna wrote on 2014-08-03 01:47

  Quote from TLCBonaparte;1236850:

  What am I slamming into? My argument has no moral shaky ground. I don't want talk of victim blaming on a rape topic. That's not wrong in any respect.
  
  On the other hands, you guys are in fact blaming the victim, but you think you don't. Why do I think that? Here:
  
  1. Do you think how the a woman dresses is correlated to her chances of attack and or rape? RapeCh = beta0 + beta1dress +ui
  
  a). They are correlated (beta1 > 0) - Then you think how she dresses is part of the reason why she was attacked, which means you think she is to blame for it, AKA victim blaming.
  
  b) They are independent variables (omit dress regressor from regression)- Then you don't think how she dresses affect her chance of being attacked, which makes bring it up to a rape topic utterly pointless.

  
  
  

  [Image: https://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9l9o05VSb1qzdisp.gif]

  
  you've completely lost me
• TLCBonaparte wrote on 2014-08-03 02:04
  Basic linear regression, you use it to make a simple model determining the relation between things. Such as rape chance and how people dress. beta zero is the constant, ui is the error term. beta 1 is the coefficient of regressor: dresscode. our Y (or endogenous variable) is rape chance which is thing we want to find.
• Kyishi wrote on 2014-08-03 02:09

  Quote from TLCBonaparte;1236850:

  What am I slamming into? My argument has no moral shaky ground. I don't want talk of victim blaming on a rape topic. That's not wrong in any respect.
  
  On the other hands, you guys are in fact blaming the victim, but you think you don't. Why do I think that? Here:
  
  1. Do you think how the a woman dresses is correlated to her chances of attack and or rape? RapeCh = beta0 + beta1dress +ui
  
  a). They are correlated (beta1 > 0) - Then you think how she dresses is part of the reason why she was attacked, which means you think she is to blame for it, AKA victim blaming.
  
  b) They are independent variables (omit dress regressor from regression)- Then you don't think how she dresses affect her chance of being attacked, which makes bring it up to a rape topic utterly pointless.

  
  
  riiiiiight
  a racist man kills another man for being black
  he was killed because he was black
  if he was not black, he wouldn't have been killed
  i am not blaming him, i am stating a fact.
  
  a man sexually harasses a woman because she was wearing a certain attire
  she was harassed because of her attire
  if she was not wearing the attire, she wouldn't have been harassed
  i am not blaming her, i am stating a fact
  
  and what you see as victim blaming others see as fact stating
• Rukuna wrote on 2014-08-03 02:13

  Quote from TLCBonaparte;1236876:

  Basic linear regression, you use it to make a simple model determining the relation between things. Such as rape chance and how people dress. beta zero is the constant, ui is the error term. beta 1 is the coefficient of regressor: dresscode. our Y (or endogenous variable) is rape chance which is thing we want to find.

  
  
  You're making things more complicated than they need to be